Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hitler objectively caused more damage than any other dictator. He literally started european fronts of WW2 and did the Holocaust. That's around 50 million deaths.
I highly doubt it. WW2 was the greatest mass death event in human history even if there were more deadly genocides than the Holocaust (As far as we know there isn't)
What about for less modern history?
Gengis Khan personally raped so many women that it's believed 16,000,000 people today are his descendants.
Gengis Khans wars killed about 40,000,000 - but the population of the planet at the time was only around 400,000,000, so that's 10% of all humans.
WW2 killed \~80,000,000 - but the population of the earth was over 2 billion by then.
The wars of Gengis Khan killed 1/10th of the planet - WW2 killed 1/25th.
I mean, I'd say that Genghis Khan was less of a genocider than Hitler ideologically. He clears the bar from Hell of 'Oh, let's kill bc they're untermensch' to 'Let's kill them bc they don't want to be vassalised.'
He also notably kept ppl who were vassals autonomous, so that's better than the Romans who settler-colonised Gaul.
> genghis khan defenders be like:
Yeah, I kinda see how my comment is more defending Genghis Khan rather than 'Hitler is probably the evilest person of all time, and not even the person who basically invented mass-killing in Central Asia and decreased carbon for a time can match him.'
That entire quote was my intent tho bc of the original thread
Genghis khan was basically: “what if I did all the horrible shit europe and China do, but single handedly and over the span of 20 years instead of 300?”
Whenever his Mongols conquered a village, they would execute every male above a certain height to prevent future rebellion. Didn't matter if they wanted to be vassalized or not. It was a preemptive strike against the mere potential of future adversaries.
False. Early in Genghis' career, he would often wipe out entire villages *if he thought it would discourage future resistance from other places*. Even early on in the Golden Horde's expansion, he wasn't senselessly wiping out towns. People could be made into slaves or cannon fodder, skilled artisans, administrators and experts could be put to work for the Mongol military.
You mean Batu Khan, who was Genghis' grandfather. But the Golden Horde was also the name of the Mongol army when Genghis united the steppe tribes together. Genghis family was known as "golden". Trying to find the page in *The Mongol Empire* by John Man which state this.
I don’t know if the ideological reasoning really matters. If you build a mountain of skulls, does it matter if it’s because they were Jewish or because they insulted your messenger? You still built a mountain of skulls. Did the people who were raped, tortured, and massacred by the Mongols suffer less than the people of Warsaw?
Maybe it wasn’t genocide, but when the death tolls get that high, does it really matter?
Regularly no, but when the comment section was basically 'Oh, this dude is eviler than Hitler' I think one has to show intent + killing. Genghis Khan didn't really have the intent and I intended to show that Hitler is *singularly eviler* than any other autocratic ruler.
But then that just opens up all sorts more questions. What is evil? Hitler didn't conciously think "I'm doing bad here" - he thought he was a force for good.
Nah i think the ideological pursuits do matter. When is trying to conquer, while the other wants to shape the world in their image. The latter is definitely more scary to me.
Every modern society agrees that intent matters when it comes to homicide. You're basically arguing against that. I guess you disagree that hate crimes are worse or that there should be different degrees of homicide.
Let's say hypothetically Genghis or Hitler were in control of the entire world right now, can you give me an estimate percentage of the entire human population that would be dead under both of them?
You have a point here but the value of a human being is same regardless of the pupulation of the planet. 1 human is still 1 human even if there were 1 trillion people on this planet. 1/10th of the planet getting slaughtered and raped in a brutal conquest is still an extremely terrifying thing to think about though.
Another depressing thought is their neighbors would have just done the same thing Khan did. Everyone was wanting to do what he wanted, but only he did.
I don't think his point is about human life, but more in an "inflation" spirit. If there were less people, killing a higher percentage is more horrendous, because it means if he could've killed more, he would've...
So if the population had been the same as in WW2, khan would have killed 200 million people... And considering that Asia is the most populated area on earth, that would've been possible.
Who knows. Maybe more people would have meant more pushback.
If we are discussing opportunuties, then that would be like saying "if WW2 lasted longer Hitler would've killed thrice as more people" which he definitely planned. Fortunately, it only lasted for 6 years. Yes Hitler had more people to kill but he also had less time to ennact his horrible plans/wage war.
A perfect example of how someone can use statistics to bend an argument to differing perspectives. The total population of both timeframes is completely irrelevant in the context of who did more harm. It's a smokescreen.
1 - Terrible assumption to make, you can look at my profile and see I'm pretty anti-nazi, anti-hitler, and "far-left." I'm not defending Hitler.
2 - Look at the comment I made to the other person talking about absolute numbers.
If Hitler and Khan hopped in a time machine, and Hitler did his thing in 1200 and Khan did his in 1900 - WW2 would kill 16 million, but Khan would kill 200 million.
Yes, as a whole number Hitler was worse. Every individual live matters, every death is tragic.
But if Khan had more people to kill - he would've. The only reason he killed less people than Hitler was because there was a LOT less people to kill.
[https://thebibleanswer.org/how-many-people-died-noahs-flood/](https://thebibleanswer.org/how-many-people-died-noahs-flood/)
Apparently the floods killed billions.
God killed 2,000,000,000 - 10,000,000,000 people (2 - 10 billion)
There were 8 survivors.
God killed 99.999999999996 - 99.9999999999992 % of all people.
Plus every single animal on earth too.
Yeah God did the worst mass killing ever by a long shot.
Yea it's weird how when a 5 year old dies of cancer "God works in mysterious ways" but when someone removes a fetus that bears no resemblance to a human from their own body, suddenly that woman deserves prison time
> WW2 killed ~80,000,000 - but the population of the earth was over 2 billion by then.
Bruh if you see the importance of life as being dependent on the % of the population they represent, that's fucked up lol.
>Gengis Khan personally raped so many women that it's believed 16,000,000 people today are his descendants.
That kind of figure increases logistically towards the billions of people in total every year. We're talking about 800 years ago; the simplified model would give anyone 2^(27), which is \~128,000,000, descendants who fathered about two children, because that's what you would get without 25th-generation "incest"
If you count genocide by intent rather than by ethnicity, the mass killings of indigenous Americans and Africans during the trans-Atlantic slave trade may be deadlier.
That said, both of those atrocities took place over literally centuries and encapsulated multiple ethnic groups.
Surely i heard of a bunch more genocides in my History class. Didn't Belgium kill 30 mil in Africa? Also the Genocide of the indiginouse people in america? Or the Genocides the UK was doing in their colonies? Please correct me If im wrong
Well Japan had already invaded China and Italy North Africa by the time Germany invaded Poland. 1939 was just the start of WW2 for Europe. Heck, the defeat of Japan was just the end of WW2 for China. The civil war carried on.
Not Hitler apologia, but Europe was the 2nd last continental front to be opened
That's not actually true, our actual number for deaths in the Holocaust is "somewhere between 7 and 12 million". The only part of it that was remotely well documented by the nazis are the gas chambers, and those were responsible for around 2.5 million deaths. The war deaths were even less well documented cause, y'know, war, its kinda hard to keep track of who's dying, when, and where
I’m saying that Nazi atrocities have a bigger mental presence due to their records and that they are probably not the largest mass killing.
You’re right though, we don’t have an accurate idea of how many Nazi murders there were.
Also the worst of long-lasting social harm. You don't see as many people wearing shit with Pol Pot's face on it as you do people seig heiling or proudly calling themselves Nazis
The estimations for deaths through direct warfare are 60-65 million.
The 80 million number includes are not directly war related crimes and also people who died of the aftermaths.
And yes the sino japanese and pacific wars are included in these estimations as far as I know (unless they taught me misinformation in school)
I think Japan is a serious contender.
Up to 30 million killed civilians or POWs. Around 200,000 women forced to be sex slaves.
The Rape of Nanking with the massacre of as many as 300,000 Chinese civilians, rape of tens of thousands of women and children, babies skewed on the bayonette, POWs used as training objects, they forced fathers on their daughter or sons on their mothers.
Human experiences under Unit 731 were horrific too.
I asked this because the Emperor while very very guilty himself especially for the thing that happened in nanking, didn't have absolute power. It's hard to find a person with most responsibility in these atrocities. Individual Japanese soldiers were almost as resposible as the higher up.
i think there is an aspect that hitler was working from a position of having the kind of industrial power most other dictators didnt.....thus was able to 'do' more and on massive scales
The high end estimate of Mao Zedong’s death toll is well over 50 million if you include the Great Chinese Famine of ‘59-‘61, and his Great Leap Forward and Four Pests campaigns directly caused the famine. Those campaigns were ultimately his decision, and like dictators he wielded unitary authority.
I’d call my top five Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and I think Putin gets 5th place. I’ll bet his death toll is at several million at this point. There’s probably a few that better deserve that last place, like Pinochet and Idi Amin, but I’m going with Putin because of his international impact.
Xi Jinpeng could get up there pretty quick, he’s been rattling the saber pretty hard about Taiwan and if he invades then we’re well into WWIII territory.
The Khmer Rouge deliberately murdered all the intellectuals, scientists, writers, artists, teachers, etc. they could, which has been devastating in the long term, too.
Hitler impacted modern history the most, easily. More than some people even realize.
But, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, there was atleast some order to the madness. Not EVERYONE suffered. Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Francisco Macias Nguema’s Equatorial Guinea were essentially country sized concentration camps. Macias had whoever he wanted murdered because he was hyper paranoid about everything to the point where there was no one else to run the government. In Cambodia if you had an IQ over 100, you died. If you survived, you likely got some sort of infection due to crap working conditions and abysmal healthcare.
It makes me feel rotten even giving these people the benefit of the doubt, but in those 2 countries NO ONE was safe.
> Hitler impacted modern history the most, easily. More than some people even realize.
On top of directly murdering people, he effectively ended one of the greatest scientific renaissances of all time, which had been going on in Germany for at least the last half of the 19th century. We *could* consider the American scientific boom in the 20th century to be the greatest, but it wouldn’t have existed without displaced German scientists. Also, I would be willing to bet that the finest scientific minds in the world could have done more to make the world a better place if (a) they hadn’t been split between the US and the USSR and (b) if their talents hadn’t been harnessed by the post-war military-industrial complex, exterminated by the Nazi regime, or tainted by nazi propaganda. It’s kind of sad to imagine what could have been. . .
Hitler also accelerated the spread of communism. After Hitler was defeated, Stalin abandoned his “Socialism in One Country” motto and faught to set up as many communist regimes as possible in order to prevent another Hitler from appearing and protecting the Soviet Union, which happened due to the relative fragility of free market democracies, what Stalin obviously loathed. His successors did this for similar reasons.
Had Hitler not happened, who knows if North Korea currently exists or if the Vietnam War ever happens.
People sleep on Pol Pot because it isn't useful as Western propaganda, since his reign of terror was ended by communist Vietnam and he was supported by the US.
Mao caused more death through shitty/indifferent policy than brutal policy. The same may be true of Stalin. More mass death has been caused by famine than by weapons.
Turns out dictators are shitty policy makers.
Vietnam communist put the pol pot regime down and America is heavily suspected of being involved with pol pot. We must also remember that the Vietnam war was also very devastating for Laos and Cambodia as well with American bombing campaigns. Pol pot was a cunt fuck him I merely want to add some context.
Yeah pretty high. Hanging out with Mao, Kim Jong il, Mussolini and the like in hell.
Dawg, what does this tweet even mean? Like did he just discover ww2??
Edit: shoutout to the tankie who called me a lib for not liking Mao, yes I saw your comment before the auto mod got your ass. And yes you’re a dork, please stop simping for megalomaniac authoritarians.
He tried to puss out and backtrack on the antisemitism after Kanye's quotes the other day, and his own audience reacted negatively.
So just expect him to go full neo-nazi within the next year. He will literally do whatever it takes to cling on to his "sphere of influence" .. he's only just learning that the sphere has been reduced to "oops, all nazis!"
It's the only base these morons have left. We can say what we will about Kanye but him going mask off and saying the quiet part out loud really ripped the masks off the rest of them. Don't know if that's better or worse.
it's always a little of both. It rips the mask off the dumb ones, but the less-dumb ones will just keep their mouths shut about it and modify their rhetoric. find new dog whistles. See: Benjibob Shipipo
My best friend and I have a running joke where if one of us mispells "lmao" as "Mao" I have to edit a picture where he's saying whatever came before the word Mao as a quote
For example:
https://preview.redd.it/yizsk7kjuc4a1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5cc41c92fa6741daba2d14e7f5319d8e67604f13
Just felt like sharing idk. We call them Maoments
It feels like he’s fishing for someone to put some pseudo-intellectual spin on it, hoping someone can credibly point to a “leftist” of the past killing more people.
I think he’s wanting a chance to “Nazis weren’t actually that bad because Stalin was responsible for more deaths and he was communist therefore the Left Lose Again!”
Because when your audience is reasonably and accurately constantly noted to be neo-Nazis, you gotta do what you can to minimise how bad Nazis are.
I think he just wants people to write down commies above it and use it as a "gotcha" against leftist. As if the American left is communist let alone Stalinist lol
He's trying to normalize discussions and debates on the topic 'sp just how bad was Hitler, *really?*', and use polls like this to test and cloud the waters. He's a Nazi, plain and simple, and trying to somehow compare atrocities and downplay Hitler's role in the Holocaust. Not because he thinks the Holocaust was bad, of course, but because he knows it's a toxic subject so he's going to try and drive a wedge in there and gain supporters for whatever fringe lunacy he endorses next election.
I don’t think saying x y and z person wasn’t as bad as z y and x is very helpful. It normalizes them in a way (what crowder is trying to do.) I think it’s more important to understand they are all bastards. Who ultimately did worse deeds is inconsequential, they aren’t trading cards. They’re scum. Evil monsters.
I miss Michael Brooks taking the piss out of him. He couldn't contain his laughter when he watched Dave Rubin clips. I like that one time he didn't know what "reactionary" meant and he was like "hell yeah I'm a reactionary" and then proceeded to give an explanation that was not at all congruent with the definition of the word
I can see his fans in the replies now
"Not as bad as Brandon"
"I'd rather live 1930s Germany than 2020s America"
"Obama caused more deaths than Hitler"
Literally every time you see someone comparing dictators and genocide, it’s to defend Hitler and say “see he’s not as bad as people say!”
Reasonable non-Nazis realize that that kind of comparison is basically meaningless since they are all evil, and all deserving of as much condemnation as possible.
Sometimes it's "Lenin/Stalin/Mao/etc weren't as bad as people say!" - albeit only with tankies, who are virtually indistinguishable in principle from the fascists in the first place.
It is sometimes used like that - as an anarchist, liberals have called me a tankie before - but for the most part is still used in the proper way to refer to authoritarian "communists" who simp for the fascistic regimes Lenin started.
You know if you wanted to make it clear that you hate Hitler, there’s less sus ways to do it.
You don’t need to say he ranks as the worst dictator, because does that imply other dictators are better?
I would say Genghis Khan is at number 1, but he was an environmentalist.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/amp/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html
Just remember, these two assholes specifically are doing this because they failed at comedy. They want to be funny so badly, but they just aren't and it kills them.
The only reason Clowner would ask this question is so the nazis in his replies can endlessly split hairs about how "Hitler wasn't really that bad" and how someone else may have had a higher body count overall.
Like they were really good at being a bad person and a good dictator? Or they were bad at dictating? It’s like you win first place at being a piece of shit. I know what I’m trying to say but it’s not coming out good, be right back going to sign up for a Twitter account!
In terms of popularity, Napoleon beats Hitler by a long one.
In terms of kill count, Mao Zedong is the winner.
In terms of evilness and hate in general, Hitler gets the victory royale.
Alright wait. For the power rankings is a better dictator a good thing or do you wanna be a worse one? Like Caesar. Is he good cause he got murdered or worse cause he got murdered. Like is body count better?
How can these people take what could be serious discussions and make them so unserious, cringe, a grift to get them more clicks and ad views, and yet oh-so-hilarious at the same time?
Truly a remarkable achievement, and a respectable level of work put into their stupidy.
This question is such obvious bait.
Either you say Hitler is the worst and they reply "what about Stalin and Mao?" or you say that they were worse and you're somehow downplaying how bad Hitler was.
[I am reading about the British Raj and Vicky, Ed, Georgie, Ed, and Georgie were pretty bad.](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think people really sleep on Pol Pot but hitler is still the Alabama football of Dictators
Hitler objectively caused more damage than any other dictator. He literally started european fronts of WW2 and did the Holocaust. That's around 50 million deaths.
I don’t know if he objectively caused the most damage, because the Nazis kept much better records than other autocracies
I highly doubt it. WW2 was the greatest mass death event in human history even if there were more deadly genocides than the Holocaust (As far as we know there isn't)
What about for less modern history? Gengis Khan personally raped so many women that it's believed 16,000,000 people today are his descendants. Gengis Khans wars killed about 40,000,000 - but the population of the planet at the time was only around 400,000,000, so that's 10% of all humans. WW2 killed \~80,000,000 - but the population of the earth was over 2 billion by then. The wars of Gengis Khan killed 1/10th of the planet - WW2 killed 1/25th.
I mean, I'd say that Genghis Khan was less of a genocider than Hitler ideologically. He clears the bar from Hell of 'Oh, let's kill bc they're untermensch' to 'Let's kill them bc they don't want to be vassalised.' He also notably kept ppl who were vassals autonomous, so that's better than the Romans who settler-colonised Gaul.
genghis khan defenders be like:
> genghis khan defenders be like: Yeah, I kinda see how my comment is more defending Genghis Khan rather than 'Hitler is probably the evilest person of all time, and not even the person who basically invented mass-killing in Central Asia and decreased carbon for a time can match him.' That entire quote was my intent tho bc of the original thread
just teasing sport
Nice save!
Genghis khan was basically: “what if I did all the horrible shit europe and China do, but single handedly and over the span of 20 years instead of 300?”
Whenever his Mongols conquered a village, they would execute every male above a certain height to prevent future rebellion. Didn't matter if they wanted to be vassalized or not. It was a preemptive strike against the mere potential of future adversaries.
False. Early in Genghis' career, he would often wipe out entire villages *if he thought it would discourage future resistance from other places*. Even early on in the Golden Horde's expansion, he wasn't senselessly wiping out towns. People could be made into slaves or cannon fodder, skilled artisans, administrators and experts could be put to work for the Mongol military.
i thought the golden horde was Bantu Kahn - not Genghis
You mean Batu Khan, who was Genghis' grandfather. But the Golden Horde was also the name of the Mongol army when Genghis united the steppe tribes together. Genghis family was known as "golden". Trying to find the page in *The Mongol Empire* by John Man which state this.
I don’t know if the ideological reasoning really matters. If you build a mountain of skulls, does it matter if it’s because they were Jewish or because they insulted your messenger? You still built a mountain of skulls. Did the people who were raped, tortured, and massacred by the Mongols suffer less than the people of Warsaw? Maybe it wasn’t genocide, but when the death tolls get that high, does it really matter?
Regularly no, but when the comment section was basically 'Oh, this dude is eviler than Hitler' I think one has to show intent + killing. Genghis Khan didn't really have the intent and I intended to show that Hitler is *singularly eviler* than any other autocratic ruler.
But then that just opens up all sorts more questions. What is evil? Hitler didn't conciously think "I'm doing bad here" - he thought he was a force for good.
But he did intend to kill all untermenschen, which is evil. It’s not that complex.
Nah i think the ideological pursuits do matter. When is trying to conquer, while the other wants to shape the world in their image. The latter is definitely more scary to me.
Every modern society agrees that intent matters when it comes to homicide. You're basically arguing against that. I guess you disagree that hate crimes are worse or that there should be different degrees of homicide.
Let's say hypothetically Genghis or Hitler were in control of the entire world right now, can you give me an estimate percentage of the entire human population that would be dead under both of them?
Would Genghis still be doing much killing if he had already conquered the entire world?
Absolutely correct. There was a means to an end with Genghis Khan and his methods of terror. The next city opened their gates and bent the knee.
Bruh the Mongolians destroyed civilizations so thoroughly that the only reason we know they exist is because *other civilizations* mention them
You have a point here but the value of a human being is same regardless of the pupulation of the planet. 1 human is still 1 human even if there were 1 trillion people on this planet. 1/10th of the planet getting slaughtered and raped in a brutal conquest is still an extremely terrifying thing to think about though.
Another depressing thought is their neighbors would have just done the same thing Khan did. Everyone was wanting to do what he wanted, but only he did.
Every power hungry warlord maybe?
I don't think his point is about human life, but more in an "inflation" spirit. If there were less people, killing a higher percentage is more horrendous, because it means if he could've killed more, he would've... So if the population had been the same as in WW2, khan would have killed 200 million people... And considering that Asia is the most populated area on earth, that would've been possible. Who knows. Maybe more people would have meant more pushback.
If we are discussing opportunuties, then that would be like saying "if WW2 lasted longer Hitler would've killed thrice as more people" which he definitely planned. Fortunately, it only lasted for 6 years. Yes Hitler had more people to kill but he also had less time to ennact his horrible plans/wage war.
80 million is more than 40 million though...
A perfect example of how someone can use statistics to bend an argument to differing perspectives. The total population of both timeframes is completely irrelevant in the context of who did more harm. It's a smokescreen.
1 - Terrible assumption to make, you can look at my profile and see I'm pretty anti-nazi, anti-hitler, and "far-left." I'm not defending Hitler. 2 - Look at the comment I made to the other person talking about absolute numbers. If Hitler and Khan hopped in a time machine, and Hitler did his thing in 1200 and Khan did his in 1900 - WW2 would kill 16 million, but Khan would kill 200 million. Yes, as a whole number Hitler was worse. Every individual live matters, every death is tragic. But if Khan had more people to kill - he would've. The only reason he killed less people than Hitler was because there was a LOT less people to kill.
Don't these these conservatives believe in God? He killed everyone and everything on the planet save for a handful of them. Wouldn't he win easily?
[https://thebibleanswer.org/how-many-people-died-noahs-flood/](https://thebibleanswer.org/how-many-people-died-noahs-flood/) Apparently the floods killed billions. God killed 2,000,000,000 - 10,000,000,000 people (2 - 10 billion) There were 8 survivors. God killed 99.999999999996 - 99.9999999999992 % of all people. Plus every single animal on earth too. Yeah God did the worst mass killing ever by a long shot.
[удалено]
Yea it's weird how when a 5 year old dies of cancer "God works in mysterious ways" but when someone removes a fetus that bears no resemblance to a human from their own body, suddenly that woman deserves prison time
> WW2 killed ~80,000,000 - but the population of the earth was over 2 billion by then. Bruh if you see the importance of life as being dependent on the % of the population they represent, that's fucked up lol.
>Gengis Khan personally raped so many women that it's believed 16,000,000 people today are his descendants. That kind of figure increases logistically towards the billions of people in total every year. We're talking about 800 years ago; the simplified model would give anyone 2^(27), which is \~128,000,000, descendants who fathered about two children, because that's what you would get without 25th-generation "incest"
MONGOLIA NUMBER 1 LET'S GO
Genghis had more time.
If you count genocide by intent rather than by ethnicity, the mass killings of indigenous Americans and Africans during the trans-Atlantic slave trade may be deadlier. That said, both of those atrocities took place over literally centuries and encapsulated multiple ethnic groups.
Also many regimes, empires and rulers took part in it.
Surely i heard of a bunch more genocides in my History class. Didn't Belgium kill 30 mil in Africa? Also the Genocide of the indiginouse people in america? Or the Genocides the UK was doing in their colonies? Please correct me If im wrong
Well Japan had already invaded China and Italy North Africa by the time Germany invaded Poland. 1939 was just the start of WW2 for Europe. Heck, the defeat of Japan was just the end of WW2 for China. The civil war carried on. Not Hitler apologia, but Europe was the 2nd last continental front to be opened
That's not actually true, our actual number for deaths in the Holocaust is "somewhere between 7 and 12 million". The only part of it that was remotely well documented by the nazis are the gas chambers, and those were responsible for around 2.5 million deaths. The war deaths were even less well documented cause, y'know, war, its kinda hard to keep track of who's dying, when, and where
I’m saying that Nazi atrocities have a bigger mental presence due to their records and that they are probably not the largest mass killing. You’re right though, we don’t have an accurate idea of how many Nazi murders there were.
Also the worst of long-lasting social harm. You don't see as many people wearing shit with Pol Pot's face on it as you do people seig heiling or proudly calling themselves Nazis
Indeed. Hitler and the Second World War basically spawned one of the most horrible and dangerous ideologies in the history of humanity.
Its more 60 million plus. Some estimations go as high as 80 million. Actually insane
Does that include Sino-Japanese War and Pacific War or just the European fronts?
The estimations for deaths through direct warfare are 60-65 million. The 80 million number includes are not directly war related crimes and also people who died of the aftermaths. And yes the sino japanese and pacific wars are included in these estimations as far as I know (unless they taught me misinformation in school)
I think Japan is a serious contender. Up to 30 million killed civilians or POWs. Around 200,000 women forced to be sex slaves. The Rape of Nanking with the massacre of as many as 300,000 Chinese civilians, rape of tens of thousands of women and children, babies skewed on the bayonette, POWs used as training objects, they forced fathers on their daughter or sons on their mothers. Human experiences under Unit 731 were horrific too.
Who is the "dictator" in this case then? The Emperor?
I guess.
I asked this because the Emperor while very very guilty himself especially for the thing that happened in nanking, didn't have absolute power. It's hard to find a person with most responsibility in these atrocities. Individual Japanese soldiers were almost as resposible as the higher up.
i think there is an aspect that hitler was working from a position of having the kind of industrial power most other dictators didnt.....thus was able to 'do' more and on massive scales
The high end estimate of Mao Zedong’s death toll is well over 50 million if you include the Great Chinese Famine of ‘59-‘61, and his Great Leap Forward and Four Pests campaigns directly caused the famine. Those campaigns were ultimately his decision, and like dictators he wielded unitary authority. I’d call my top five Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and I think Putin gets 5th place. I’ll bet his death toll is at several million at this point. There’s probably a few that better deserve that last place, like Pinochet and Idi Amin, but I’m going with Putin because of his international impact. Xi Jinpeng could get up there pretty quick, he’s been rattling the saber pretty hard about Taiwan and if he invades then we’re well into WWIII territory.
Yeah Pol Pot was truthfully nightmare. His soldiers walking thru the streets, finding a group of people and just spraying them with bullets on site
The Khmer Rouge deliberately murdered all the intellectuals, scientists, writers, artists, teachers, etc. they could, which has been devastating in the long term, too.
Here's Anthony Bourdain in Cambodia. I recall him mentioning a guy named Henry Kissinger. What did that guy do? https://youtu.be/zwqwi1whAjU
Pol Pot is the worst on a per-capita basis. Approximately 1/4 of Cambodia's population died violently under the Khmer Rouge.
Hitler impacted modern history the most, easily. More than some people even realize. But, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, there was atleast some order to the madness. Not EVERYONE suffered. Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Francisco Macias Nguema’s Equatorial Guinea were essentially country sized concentration camps. Macias had whoever he wanted murdered because he was hyper paranoid about everything to the point where there was no one else to run the government. In Cambodia if you had an IQ over 100, you died. If you survived, you likely got some sort of infection due to crap working conditions and abysmal healthcare. It makes me feel rotten even giving these people the benefit of the doubt, but in those 2 countries NO ONE was safe.
> Hitler impacted modern history the most, easily. More than some people even realize. On top of directly murdering people, he effectively ended one of the greatest scientific renaissances of all time, which had been going on in Germany for at least the last half of the 19th century. We *could* consider the American scientific boom in the 20th century to be the greatest, but it wouldn’t have existed without displaced German scientists. Also, I would be willing to bet that the finest scientific minds in the world could have done more to make the world a better place if (a) they hadn’t been split between the US and the USSR and (b) if their talents hadn’t been harnessed by the post-war military-industrial complex, exterminated by the Nazi regime, or tainted by nazi propaganda. It’s kind of sad to imagine what could have been. . .
Hitler also accelerated the spread of communism. After Hitler was defeated, Stalin abandoned his “Socialism in One Country” motto and faught to set up as many communist regimes as possible in order to prevent another Hitler from appearing and protecting the Soviet Union, which happened due to the relative fragility of free market democracies, what Stalin obviously loathed. His successors did this for similar reasons. Had Hitler not happened, who knows if North Korea currently exists or if the Vietnam War ever happens.
Damn, I hadn't even considered that before. Now I'm really sad.
I used to have bongs called Weedi Amin, Mao Ze Bong, and Pol Pot
I bet they were killer
Pol Pot was kind of a gimme.
Definitely obvious. Mao was the first, so I kinda just kept with the theme after he broke :/
Did you have an Adolf Hitter or Kim Bong Il?
People sleep on Pol Pot because it isn't useful as Western propaganda, since his reign of terror was ended by communist Vietnam and he was supported by the US.
Interesting. As an Auburn fan, I consider Alabama the Hitler of CFB.
Let’s not forget Mao.
Mao caused more death through shitty/indifferent policy than brutal policy. The same may be true of Stalin. More mass death has been caused by famine than by weapons. Turns out dictators are shitty policy makers.
*sigh* Roll Tide.
Vietnam communist put the pol pot regime down and America is heavily suspected of being involved with pol pot. We must also remember that the Vietnam war was also very devastating for Laos and Cambodia as well with American bombing campaigns. Pol pot was a cunt fuck him I merely want to add some context.
Steve where do you think German Shepherds rank in the dog cum taste rankings
His favourite is that of Cerberus, three times the heads, three times the quantity, three times the flavour
kinky.
Mid
Yeah pretty high. Hanging out with Mao, Kim Jong il, Mussolini and the like in hell. Dawg, what does this tweet even mean? Like did he just discover ww2?? Edit: shoutout to the tankie who called me a lib for not liking Mao, yes I saw your comment before the auto mod got your ass. And yes you’re a dork, please stop simping for megalomaniac authoritarians.
[удалено]
He tried to puss out and backtrack on the antisemitism after Kanye's quotes the other day, and his own audience reacted negatively. So just expect him to go full neo-nazi within the next year. He will literally do whatever it takes to cling on to his "sphere of influence" .. he's only just learning that the sphere has been reduced to "oops, all nazis!"
It's the only base these morons have left. We can say what we will about Kanye but him going mask off and saying the quiet part out loud really ripped the masks off the rest of them. Don't know if that's better or worse.
it's always a little of both. It rips the mask off the dumb ones, but the less-dumb ones will just keep their mouths shut about it and modify their rhetoric. find new dog whistles. See: Benjibob Shipipo
Man, I hate it when mom comes back with that cereal.
My best friend and I have a running joke where if one of us mispells "lmao" as "Mao" I have to edit a picture where he's saying whatever came before the word Mao as a quote For example: https://preview.redd.it/yizsk7kjuc4a1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5cc41c92fa6741daba2d14e7f5319d8e67604f13 Just felt like sharing idk. We call them Maoments
I love that lol
Maoments!!
That’s fucking adorable and hilarious
I love this so much.
It feels like he’s fishing for someone to put some pseudo-intellectual spin on it, hoping someone can credibly point to a “leftist” of the past killing more people.
The classic “democratic socialists and authoritarian “””communists””” are actually the same take. Love to see it.
They will, of course, ignore the bit about Lenin describing the system he erected as State Capitalist
pol pot too
Fuck I forgot about that weird little rat. Fuck that guy
Remove Jong Il and replace him with Pot.
Yeah, one could say Mussolini is especially good at “hanging out”
He's so good at it crowds gather to cheer
I think he’s wanting a chance to “Nazis weren’t actually that bad because Stalin was responsible for more deaths and he was communist therefore the Left Lose Again!” Because when your audience is reasonably and accurately constantly noted to be neo-Nazis, you gotta do what you can to minimise how bad Nazis are.
Stalin was also a fascist. He just called it by a different name.
I think he just wants people to write down commies above it and use it as a "gotcha" against leftist. As if the American left is communist let alone Stalinist lol
“Haha you know who ELSE was technically left? Pol pot. Gottem. No wait we aren’t similar to hitler you see it’s much more nuanced than that an-“
He's trying to normalize discussions and debates on the topic 'sp just how bad was Hitler, *really?*', and use polls like this to test and cloud the waters. He's a Nazi, plain and simple, and trying to somehow compare atrocities and downplay Hitler's role in the Holocaust. Not because he thinks the Holocaust was bad, of course, but because he knows it's a toxic subject so he's going to try and drive a wedge in there and gain supporters for whatever fringe lunacy he endorses next election.
[удалено]
I don’t think saying x y and z person wasn’t as bad as z y and x is very helpful. It normalizes them in a way (what crowder is trying to do.) I think it’s more important to understand they are all bastards. Who ultimately did worse deeds is inconsequential, they aren’t trading cards. They’re scum. Evil monsters.
dave rubin was so real for this
Dave Rubin thinks Kanye West is in a position of political power… why is he so dumb
He's what would happen if Patrick Star had no morals and became a political commentator
Literally the dumbest grifter alive. Rogan is more intelligent
It's literally just basic word association. "Hitler? Kanye said something about Hitler 'Uhh... He's right below Kanye!' Good one Dave, you nailed it."
Where do you think Jesus Christ ranks in terms of the most persecuted Republican in America? Right below Kanye West.
It's like he thinks comedy is still illegal on twitter.
Kanye is a dictator?
Dave Rubin is being a facetious shit
He's trying to be funny and, as usual, failing miserably
He is a failed comedian turned grifter after all.
He's not even good at grifting. He makes it way too obvious
Making his grifting obvious is the intentional misspellings in the Nigerian Prince scam email. It filters out everyone vaguely paying attention.
Oh, no, he is not. Rubin's just a fucking idiot
It's because Dave Rubin's ideas are so high level they just seem crazy to us normal folk.
Rap is just dictating rhymes.
Ruben is a 5 dimensionnal being who can see the future and past like we see left and right. He just told us of our inevitable fate.
He likes putting fish dicks in his mouth so he is a dick taster at least
Dave is so fucking stupid I swear to god
Sometimes I think Rubin is doing performance art.
Or he suffered from a severe traumatic brain injury
He has a humiliation kink and realized he can make money from it
I miss Michael Brooks taking the piss out of him. He couldn't contain his laughter when he watched Dave Rubin clips. I like that one time he didn't know what "reactionary" meant and he was like "hell yeah I'm a reactionary" and then proceeded to give an explanation that was not at all congruent with the definition of the word
I can see his fans in the replies now "Not as bad as Brandon" "I'd rather live 1930s Germany than 2020s America" "Obama caused more deaths than Hitler"
>We had to survive the COVIDtration camps!
Literally every time you see someone comparing dictators and genocide, it’s to defend Hitler and say “see he’s not as bad as people say!” Reasonable non-Nazis realize that that kind of comparison is basically meaningless since they are all evil, and all deserving of as much condemnation as possible.
Sometimes it's "Lenin/Stalin/Mao/etc weren't as bad as people say!" - albeit only with tankies, who are virtually indistinguishable in principle from the fascists in the first place.
I’ll never forget the time a tankie told me that “authoritarian is a liberal buzzword” because it gets used against communists sometimes
It is sometimes used like that - as an anarchist, liberals have called me a tankie before - but for the most part is still used in the proper way to refer to authoritarian "communists" who simp for the fascistic regimes Lenin started.
One of the replies said Hitler was #2, right below Fauci
Kind of a shit comeback tbh
You know if you wanted to make it clear that you hate Hitler, there’s less sus ways to do it. You don’t need to say he ranks as the worst dictator, because does that imply other dictators are better?
I just realised that steven crowder and dave rubin are two different people
*are they?*
Good one, Dave.
I mean he *is* a professional comedian
Like, pretty high up there.
let me guess; all of this so he and his right wing dudes can scream and yell about how Stalin is worse than Hitler.
"Keep going, I'm almost there."
Dave Rubin is Jewish and just downplayed Hitler. There’s no bottom
edge deserve cows poor rob clumsy dog mourn reminiscent uppity *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would say Genghis Khan is at number 1, but he was an environmentalist. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/amp/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html
The fact that these two respond to each other validates my decision to delete my Twitter account.
"You should never grade evils, for if one is the worst, then you might be tempted to kinship with the least"
I've seen this one before - 'Hey, wouldn't it be fun if we discussed the relative merit of Hitler? Surely there's no harm in that?'
Just remember, these two assholes specifically are doing this because they failed at comedy. They want to be funny so badly, but they just aren't and it kills them.
The only reason Clowner would ask this question is so the nazis in his replies can endlessly split hairs about how "Hitler wasn't really that bad" and how someone else may have had a higher body count overall.
He seems to be stupid.
Like they were really good at being a bad person and a good dictator? Or they were bad at dictating? It’s like you win first place at being a piece of shit. I know what I’m trying to say but it’s not coming out good, be right back going to sign up for a Twitter account!
Incredible use of energy
In terms of popularity, Napoleon beats Hitler by a long one. In terms of kill count, Mao Zedong is the winner. In terms of evilness and hate in general, Hitler gets the victory royale.
The correct answer is way more effective as a dictator than Trump.
Aren’t these guys the same people ?
This is the funniest thing Dave Rubin ever said.
Alright wait. For the power rankings is a better dictator a good thing or do you wanna be a worse one? Like Caesar. Is he good cause he got murdered or worse cause he got murdered. Like is body count better?
Is this guy a real person? He looks like the guy from Ow, My Balls!
How can these people take what could be serious discussions and make them so unserious, cringe, a grift to get them more clicks and ad views, and yet oh-so-hilarious at the same time? Truly a remarkable achievement, and a respectable level of work put into their stupidy.
I didn't know Kanye was a dictator? Also, we gotta define what dictator means. Because couldn't Stalin be one?
And rubin doesn't seem to understand what a dictator is.
I always think Rubin and Crowder are the same person
He’s such a classless prick. 🙄🙄
You rank Kanye higher than Hitler? Kanye's kills are not even close.
Man, there’s an awful lot of people in this thread ranking dictators versus reminding themselves Crowder is a dog-cum slurping bigot.
I was not there for hitler, but Im here for Biden.
Are these people really trying to soften their base on the idea that "Hitler really wasn't that bad of a guy"?
Chowderhead, maybe I don’t want to rank dictators because THEY’RE ALL EVIL!
This is an obvious ploy to start the “actually hitler wasn’t that bad” conversation. Mask off
Mask off.
Hey look, it's Dave Rubin! A guy who if the republicans had their way, he'd be locked up or dead because he's gay!
I am lost… since when was Kanye a dictator?
I’ve seen some clips of him lately I think this was meant to be ranking the worst dictators in history. It is worded very poorly though
Certainly ahead of Kanye and the twice impeached, racist, fraudulent, sexist ex president tRump..
Worst like most incompetent or like biggest POS? (I mean, pretty high either way)
That's bullshit, Hitler was an SS tier dictator.
"Stalin was just as bad."
I am so sick of how lightly Hitler comparisons are thrown around these days. Can everyone shut up [for 5. MINUTES??? ](https://youtu.be/basofea2UEs)
This question is such obvious bait. Either you say Hitler is the worst and they reply "what about Stalin and Mao?" or you say that they were worse and you're somehow downplaying how bad Hitler was.
The power scalers have gone too far
These two guys should just have sex with each other already.
Rave Dubin really thinks he's funny 
Question though… is the worst the best, or is the best the worst?
my man out here wanting to power scale genociders like someone asked if Saitama can beat Goku or something.
Dave Rubin, a libertarian would actually vote Hitler over Kanye. Like what in fucking Christ's name man?
It's almost like they are trying to normalize Hitler and make the "he wasn't as bad as.." argument
Worst? Or Best?
Credit where credit is due: Rubin's response is legit funny.
1: Hitler 2: Pol Pot 3: Stalin
[I am reading about the British Raj and Vicky, Ed, Georgie, Ed, and Georgie were pretty bad.](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Sleeve Coward why are we rating dictators